On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 6:48 PM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 6:48 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> If the Schrödinger equation really means what it says and everything >>> that can happen does happen >>> >> >> *> The Schroedinger equation says nothing of the sort.. Only things that >> are nomologically possible given your particular initial conditions can >> happen.* >> > > Or to say the exact same thing with different words, everything that can > happen does happen. > Hmmm! You have to be careful that you are not just saying the hat happens, happens! If there is a world in which I turn left, there is no necessity for there to be a world in which a copy of me turns left at that moment. > * > And that rules out things like "there is a copy of me that turns left >> whenever I turn right....".* >> > > That would be true only if you assume the wave function collapses, and > Schrödinger says absolutely nothing about that, it was tacked on by people > who wanted only one world. > Nothing to do with collapse. Why is it that you many-worlds advocates always accuse someone who opposes you of assuming some collapse? Rubbish, it assumes no such thing. >> Additional assumptions are needed only if you insist on getting rid of >>> those other worlds, >>> >> >> *> Additional assumptions are needed if you want to make sense of >> questions like" "What will a being that remembers being John Clark today >> see tomorrow."* >> > > Like what? > That beings like John Clark, with identifiable characteristics, actually exist at all. > >> Hugh Everett's genius wasn't that he added something new to Quantum >>> Mechanics, his genius was in getting rid of useless junk. >>> >> >> *> And he was something of an idiot because he did not see that you could >> not get probabilities out of a deterministic theory * >> > > You can if the theory is deterministic but not realistic as Many Worlds > is, that is to say if a deterministic interaction between 2 particles > always produces more than one outcome. > Actually, I thought one of the attractions of the many worlds theory was that it was realistic -- in the sense that the wave function really exists a a physical object, and that all possibilities contained in that equation are realized. How much more realistic do you want? Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an effort trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot get probabilities from the Schroedinger equation without some additional assumptions. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT0Fgq0UyZ1mkd0jFYPbYi54-7k0s0-uS_hKYCNwAH_iA%40mail.gmail.com.
